Week 7 - The Ottomans and the idea of Europe

Question 1

periodisation

Answer 1

Turning point from medieval to early modern
Turning point: gunpowder, black death, protestant reformation
Can we use these local turning points as globally significance?
Don’t loose sight of continuities
Are these turning points real?

Question 2

islamic empires

Answer 2

Ottoman (Mediterranean)
Safavid (Persia)
Mughal (India)
In competition

Question 3

ottoman empire - expansion and power

Answer 3

30 million people
50:50 muslim
Secularism - defence of shari’a from Shi’ism

Expansion and power:
Mixture of military aggression and diplomacy
Central land distribution system
Prioritise central government income
Reward key officials/soldiers without ownership
Regular movement of people
Prevented developing nuclei of opposition
Selective tolerance
Jizya (tax on non-Muslims) - got some protection
Appointment of non-muslims in key advisory roles

Question 4

noble slavery

Answer 4

A way of circumventing some prohibitions of shari’a - not to enslave muslims, rulers not to exercise unbridled authority
A way of integrating non-muslims into ottoman service
Subject to direct and total imperial authority/favour
Strict limits on some rights (marriage, children)
Could have Extremely elite socio-political status but came at great expense

Question 5

islamic networks of trade

Answer 5

Developing markets: maize, tobacco, opium, coffee, gunpowder and spices
Dynamics: connections across dar al-Islam, links to new world, links to old world
Cultural/religious norms of free trade
Intense competition between places may result in trade bans

Question 6

the ottoman-europeans interface

Answer 6

Conquest of Constantinople, 1453
A place of symbolic significance: notional interface between Europe and Asia, imperial city, inheritance of Rome, a place of crusade, conquest possibly predicted by Mohammed
Border land formed (Habsburg-Ottoman borderland)
Focal point of conflict
Contested areas of potential expansion
A religious frontier
Cultural blending
A conceptual line of distinction and identity formation for both sides

Question 7

outcome of the Ottoman Empire

Answer 7

Invention of orientalism as a defining other for European selfhood
Turkish as a European metaphor for luxury and mystery
Growing conceptual cohesion of what makes Europe a single entity
`

Question 8

crusade

Answer 8

Since 1291 still a powerful concept in christian rhetoric
Resurfaces periodically in 15-17th century
A recruitment of strategy for Habsburg forces
A papal rallying cry for christian or European unity
A religious polemic
Protecting commercial interests (eg. Venice)
Not a unanimous response:
Alliances also occurred
Diplomacy might be a better strategy to crusade wars

Question 9

David Thomas, 39

Answer 9

• Jesus Christ’s status as a holy figure is viewed in different ways between Christians and Muslims. Christians view him as both the son of God and God himself, whereas Muslims view him as a holy man but entirely apart from God.
• Recounting an encounter with a non-Christian who sought to understand the doctrine of Christianity → Turkish officials
• A bit of an FAQs (?)
• An abridged version of a longer document (‘The only way to salvation of humankind’, by Scholarios) was requested by the sultan
• Translated into Ottoman Turkish → led Turks interested in the teachings of Christianity to regard Scholarios as the main authority → made Christianity comprehensible to Turks (cited Qur’an verses on Jesus, etc)
• Christians describe reliance on oral tradition/inherited wisdom as justification/validity to why that wisdom is trusted. Faith described as a base requirement to follow the more literal teachings espoused (“we need no arguments or proofs for the divinity of Christ”), which runs counter to the Ottoman legalistic interpretation of religion, such as the Shari’a.
• Turkish attitudes: are intrigued and seek to understand - unclear if they are convinced or not → implied, but is that biased
• Christian attitudes: completely convicted of the truth of what they believe and keen to share it

Question 10

David Thomas 70

Answer 10

• JDS was a theologian from the Iberian kingdom of Castille who sought to learn more about Islam
• After hearing about the fall of Constantinople in 1453 he advocates for Peace with the Turks with his letter to his pal Nicholas of Cusa
• Proposes sending delegation, which would “disabuse them of their erroneous views of Christians’ beliefs” (idea that a positive reputation would ease tension and diminish the need for conflict)
• JDS basically says the details of the delegation is not up to him, just says that we should be peaceful like Christ was
• JDS argues that war would be justified if the Turks rejected peace, but they are not likely to
• “There is therefore no reason for war against these people, as if they were worshippers of many gods.”
  Conclusion:
• Due to JDS’ past positive exchanges with Muslims, he was able to propose a peaceful solution - Perhaps a rare perspective especially after the fall of Constantinople

Question 11

Menage

Answer 11

• 24: Shari’a is held above the authority of the Sultan, overruling his document of safe-passage for harbis (non-Muslim residents outside of Islamic lands, including merchants). Which suggests adherence to a legalistic interpretation of religious law and doctrine is the highest authority. The dhimmis (non-Muslim residents in Ottoman land) seem to ‘outrank’ harbis, potentially because they reside within Islamic territory, whereas harbis don’t. Shari’a, then, and its interpretation legally in this Muslim state, overrides any cultural barriers when a relevant law/stipulation of Shari’a states a ruling on it.
• 25: The annulment and division of estate donated to monks can be justified (if they are not poor). Therefore the relevance of Shari’a law governing those in poverty can be understood to overrule existing religio-cultural barriers, even when the explicit goal of the other religious institutions involved is to convert and “spread the gospel”. A possible threat to religious hegemony under the Ottomans is allowed to persist in order to follow their interpretation of Shari’a most correctly. The endowment of a gift from a Christian woman in exchange for prayer is a Christain practice.
• 26: Relying on two eyewitnesses of no described rank/authority/affiliation who are both over 110 as the sole evidence of a “secret agreement” between Sultan Mehmed and the Christians and Jews that they wouldn’t help the Byzantines and in turn wouldn’t be enslaved. “Secret agreement” between the Sultan and the Christians and Jews allowed for the retention of “old churches.” Sounds flimsy, so there’s not much pressure to upset the existing religious landscape.
  The fact that there’s a legal distinction made between types of conquest and how these are applied critically against the actions of the Sultan, rather than the Sultan’s actions being justified by his authority alone, speaks to the adherence to, and importance of, legality in the actions of the Sultan and the state. A flimsy-seeming pair of eyewitnesses are brought forward to defend his means of invasion legally, which could mean it was ‘rubber-stamped’ but clearly legal approval is something that’s required, or the Sultan at least needs to be seen as receiving it.